Did Jesus think about sex?

[Giovanni]

Hey, I think I can answer this one, and not because I am so smart or pious, but because the subject of lust was discussed on Relevant Radio this morning.
Our Lord was human in every way, and like us was tempted in every way, but He was and is God, so sin was not and is not present in Him, so He could never ever have lustful thoughts.
That was explained with the fall of Adam and Eve, for before the devil’ temptation, though naked, they looked at each other as God would look at them, without shame or lust or any thought of sin in their minds and hearts. It was after sin entered their heart, that they were ashamed to be naked, and covered themselves.
So in saying all of that, God who is without sin cannot have thoughts of lust.

Someone correct me if I am wrong, or maybe can explain it better than I.

Thank you very much.

 

[Joanp62]

I think this is where we see it differently, JoanP. Yes, I think we can infer many things about the life of Jesus that are not recorded in scripture by looking at the customs of the time and the way families lived. It does not say that he ran and played with other children his age, either, but I bet He did when he was a child. I think He may have been encouraged to marry, if those around Him recognized what a good man he was. No one on this thread has ascribed to Him human “weakness” and especially lust, which is a sin. I think where we differ is that some of us think natural human sexual desire is a beautiful ability created to glorify God, and is neither a weakness, or lustful. I don’t think these desires are in any way contrary to God’s divine nature. In fact, “male and female created He them”. Our sexuality was intended to REFLECT God’s nature. However, I do agree that, for Jesus, marriage and a family was not consistent with the vocation to which He was called.

Tell me this then. Forget about what “thinking about sex” could mean and lets focus on temptation in general… When Jesus was tempted in the desert, do you think Jesus hesitated and thought “Hmmm, I am hungry, maybe I will change the stones into bread.”, before rejecting Satan. I don’t think he would have. Scripture has Satan tempting Jesus and Jesus immediately responding that man does not live on bread alone, etc. Satan tempted him, he was an outside source of temptation, but there is nothing there to say that Jesus considered it.

Joan P.

 

[Joanp62]

Hey, I think I can answer this one, and not because I am so smart or pious, but because the subject of lust was discussed on Relevant Radio this morning.
Our Lord was human in every way, and like us was tempted in every way, but He was and is God, so sin was not and is not present in Him, so He could never ever have lustful thoughts.
That was explained with the fall of Adam and Eve, for before the devil’ temptation, though naked, they looked at each other as God would look at them, without shame or lust or any thought of sin in their minds and hearts. It was after sin entered their heart, that they were ashamed to be naked, and covered themselves.
So in saying all of that, God who is without sin cannot have thoughts of lust.

Someone correct me if I am wrong, or maybe can explain it better than I.

Thank you very much.

I think that sounds right to me. JPII also covered that in his Theology of the Body if I remember right.

God Bless,
Joan P.

 

[guanophore]

I answered this above. That’s not struggle; it is quite understandable dread over the means, which is a perfectly human reaction.

Yes, thank you.

On the other hand, you also said: Desiring to have sex with someone who is beautiful or smells good is not an instinctual human reaction. One can appreciate someone’s beauty without sexual desire. Most of us have bad habits in that regard, which is why it’s impossible to go through life without even venial sin, but there are people who have this gift. I certainly don’t claim to be one of them, by the way!

Something may have gotten lost in the quote, here. I don’t think I ever said anything about the desire to have any sex. It may be that the OP was talking about the priests saying that? I don’ tthink finding someone attractive or beautiful necessarily means having sex, so I think we are in agreement on that point. The reason I have been belaboring this topic is for the very reason you give here, that most of us have bad habits in that regard. It is one area where the teaching of the church has been far too absent! Thank God for JP and his Theology of the Body! In fact, there is much about sensual experience that has nothing to do with sex. Don’t you think Jesus would have loved a backrub? Wonder if his mother ever did this for him? I bet, when the woman came into the Pharisees house and poured oil on his feet, and wiped them with her hair, it was pleasant for him physically. It is not sexual, and it is not lustful. It is just recognizing the pleasure of being in the body. Jesus came “eating and drinking”. I bet he enjoyed good food and a good cup of wine. It is not gluttony! It is enjoyment of the natural human nature. Although they did accuse him of being a glutton for that…

 

[guanophore]

It seems relatively clear to me that Scripture speaks of two kinds of temptations. The first kind is the one that St. James describes. As to that kind “Let no one say when he is tempted, ‘I am tempted by God’; for God cannot be tempted with evil and he himself tempts no one” (Jas. 1:13). There is another sort in which God simply provides the occasion in which someone who had an evil disposition could sin (see, e.g., 2 Sam. 24:1, Gen. 22:1, Hebr. 4:15), which is sometimes translated as “tested.” This is when someone is demonstrated to have a virtuous heart by doing right where others might do wrong. Logically, God can do the latter and not the former. Since the former pertains to a disposition of the will and since Christ’s will cannot be disposed against the will of the Father (John 6:38), it logically follows that Jesus cannot be tempted in the former way.

I can see where you might intuitively think that such temptation could not be a “real” temptation, but it seems that rigorous analysis shows this gut feeling to be incorrect.

I am not sure I am following this, but I am going to make a stab. Are you saying that the passage in James, where sin is concieved from desire, is not possible to be the type of temptation that Jesus might endure because he cannot feel any such desire? I am distinguishing here between human passionate longing, and the disordered desire (concupiscience). Are you saying that Jesus did not experience passionate desire?

On a separate note, I disagree with you with regard to the statement you made above, that "the former (type of temptation) pertains to a disposition of the will. I think the disposition of the wil comes later. The passage clearly states that desire is first, then lust (uncontrolled passion) then sin.The desire in itself is not an act of the will.

 

[JPrejean]

I think we’re actually on the same page; you are right that Jesus could enjoy physical pleasure without having inordinate desire. In that respect, Jesus could have “passionate desire” just like any of us. Like you said, he just doesn’t have that act of will of inordinate desire with which he has to struggle. He can just enjoy food without being tempted (internally) to gluttony or enjoy looking at a beautiful woman without being tempted (internally) to sex. And in the sense that one’s heart races upon seeing a good friend or any beautiful aspect of God’s creation, then certainly, I think Jesus’s heart could do so.

I think I was reading more into what you said than you actually meant, because I’m used to hearing “passions” in the way the Greek Fathers used that term, which meant being whipped around inordinately by your emotions beyond the control of reason. Let’s just say I’m betting that the vast majority of men have experienced turning their head to follow a beautiful woman for motives slightly less elevated than the love of the Good in Creation. That’s why I thought what the priest said could have been confusing. And think about it from the girl’s perspective. When my daughter gets older, I don’t want her to think that it’s OK or uncontrollable when guys leer at her!

 

[seekerz]

I think we’re actually on the same page; you are right that Jesus could enjoy physical pleasure without having inordinate desire. In that respect, Jesus could have “passionate desire” just like any of us. Like you said, he just doesn’t have that act of will of inordinate desire with which he has to struggle. He can just enjoy food without being tempted (internally) to gluttony or enjoy looking at a beautiful woman without being tempted (internally) to sex. And in the sense that one’s heart races upon seeing a good friend or any beautiful aspect of God’s creation, then certainly, I think Jesus’s heart could do so.

I think I was reading more into what you said than you actually meant, because I’m used to hearing “passions” in the way the Greek Fathers used that term, which meant being whipped around inordinately by your emotions beyond the control of reason. Let’s just say I’m betting that the vast majority of men have experienced turning their head to follow a beautiful woman for motives slightly less elevated than the love of the Good in Creation. That’s why I thought what the priest said could have been confusing. And think about it from the girl’s perspective. When my daughter gets older, I don’t want her to think that it’s OK or uncontrollable when guys leer at her!

Thanks for your response earlier but I’m just not sure how we got from the priest’s comment as outlined in the name of this post, to a discussion of temptation and sin.

Not that it’s not an interesting discussion (and a little confusing for me), but why was the leap made from thoughts about sex to temptation and sin? It is possible to think about sex without lusting, fantasizing…or in any way sinning.

Maybe I misunderstood the context of that priest’s statement and if I did I stand corrected. It’s just that the immediate connection between sin and sex seems unwarranted to me.

 

[guanophore]

Thanks for your response earlier but I’m just not sure how we got from the priest’s comment as outlined in the name of this post, to a discussion of temptation and sin.

(original post) Last month, in discussing Our Lord’s humanity, a priest giving a sermon said that Jesus thought about sex; and later, also on the same subject, a different priest said that if Jesus had seen a beautiful woman, “his head would have turned and his heart must have pounded faster.”

I think this happened because so many of us cannot imagine the sexual nature of humanity without thinking of temptation, and sin. Personally, I thought you were uncomfortable with the comments made by the priests because you did not think it was an appropriate topic (too sinful?) for church, and because you did not believe Jesus had these kinds of experiences.

Not that it’s not an interesting discussion (and a little confusing for me), but why was the leap made from thoughts about sex to temptation and sin? It is possible to think about sex without lusting, fantasizing…or in any way sinning.

Maybe I misunderstood the context of that priest’s statement and if I did I stand corrected. It’s just that the immediate connection between sin and sex seems unwarranted to me.

(original post) We know Jesus was fully Divine and fully human, but human in all ways but sin. To me, humanly speaking, when we think about sex, or feel desire for someone, wouldn’t LUST be involved? To imply that Our Lord thought about sex, or felt desire for another woman, would seem to me to imply that He felt lust, which is very wrong because lust is a sin and our Lord never sinned.

Perhaps I just misunderstood your reaction to the priest’s statement. I thought you were lumping attraction with lust, and I was objecting to to that. I also believe that we are sexual beings, we live in sensual bodies, and Jesus, being fully human, did the same. I don’t think that Jesus had sin, just experience, and temptation.

 

[Auriel]

I must admit, after reading the posts and getting over the initial shock, I finally get the question. I will admit I found it disturbing. Made me think of parents having sex, which I wish to NEVER :nope: think of. I must go to happy place now.

 

[Joanp62]

I think this happened because so many of us cannot imagine the sexual nature of humanity without thinking of temptation, and sin. Personally, I thought you were uncomfortable with the comments made by the priests because you did not think it was an appropriate topic (too sinful?) for church, and because you did not believe Jesus had these kinds of experiences.

Perhaps I just misunderstood your reaction to the priest’s statement. I thought you were lumping attraction with lust, and I was objecting to to that. I also believe that we are sexual beings, we live in sensual bodies, and Jesus, being fully human, did the same. I don’t think that Jesus had sin, just experience, and temptation.

Even though you were replying to seekerz post, you included quotes from me so I will respond.Yes, I think when a priest says something such as “Jesus thought about sex” to a large group of people, he is being irresponsible because it is highly likely that at least some in the audience would be thinking that it means lust, engaging in sexual fantasies, etc. And then may therefore think, well if Jesus had those thoughts, its okay for me. When for us to do that, could be a means to sin. The term “thinking about sex” is so general that it can be taken in many ways. I still have not changed my mind, this is irresponsible at best dangerous at worst on the part of the priest.

Am I lumping attraction with lust? I personally am guilty of many sins, lust isn’t one of them. So for me, NO. However, for many, attraction leads to lust very quickly and easily. I believe it is a very fine line with us mere sinful humanbeings.God Bless,Joan P.

 

[guanophore]

Yes, I think when a priest says something such as “Jesus thought about sex” to a large group of people, he is being irresponsible because it is highly likely that at least some in the audience would be thinking that it means lust, engaging in sexual fantasies, etc. And then may therefore think, well if Jesus had those thoughts, its okay for me. When for us to do that, could be a means to sin. The term “thinking about sex” is so general that it can be taken in many ways. I still have not changed my mind, this is irresponsible at best dangerous at worst on the part of the priest.

However, for many, attraction leads to lust very quickly and easily. I believe it is a very fine line with us mere sinful humanbeings.God Bless,Joan P.

I wish our priests had better training in sex and sexuality. I often wonder “what are they teaching in seminary?!” In one documentary, a shadowed figure who said he was a recovering abuser explained how he learned it in the seminiary, how to get boys. I agree with you that it is a difficult subject, and that the wording could have been better chosen. However, I really think it is essential for teaching about sexuality and the sacraments needs to be much more prominent. I spoke with a young Catholic (17) the other day who is not yet catechized. He had never heard of chastity, and thought it was “disgusting” when I suggested that a young man should not be thinking about sex unless he was in a state of prayer.

 

[Joanp62]

I wish our priests had better training in sex and sexuality. I often wonder “what are they teaching in seminary?!” In one documentary, a shadowed figure who said he was a recovering abuser explained how he learned it in the seminiary, how to get boys. I agree with you that it is a difficult subject, and that the wording could have been better chosen. However, I really think it is essential for teaching about sexuality and the sacraments needs to be much more prominent.

The funny thing about this time though, the priest wasn’t teaching about sexuality. He was giving a talk for an RCIA workshop. I was there, I heard the context in which he brought it up, my question to him if I could have spoke up was: WHY? what is your point Fr.? Do you realize that what you are saying at this time does nothing to further our faith and for some could harm it??? Because this statement could so easily be taken the wrong way?

These are rhetorical questions. I do not expect an answer.
God Bless,
Joan P.

Joan P.

 

[seekerz]

Honestly, we need to be less uptight about discussing sex. The negative associations with sin are a direct result of fallen human nature. If anything, priests and others in leadership in the Church, have the (almost impossible) task of getting us to regard sex in a natural, normal, Christian way.

Just because the priest’s statement could have been taken the wrong way is not enough reason to conclude that he shouldn’t have said it. There’s hardly anything that could be preached from the pulpit that’s not open to misinterpretation/misunderstanding - or is that risk okay except where it concerns sex?

 

[itsjustdave1988]

Does conscupiscience mean only disordered desire?

Theologians more precisely call it the fomes (“tinder” or “kindling”) of sin, and it is a consequence of original sin.

According to Fr. John Hardon’s Pocket Catholic Dictionary:

CONCUPISCENCE. Insubordination of man’s desires to the dictates of reason, and the propensity of human nature to sin as a result of original sin. More commonly, it refers to the spontaneous movement of the sensitive appetites toward whatever the imagination portrays as pleasant and away from whatever it portrays as painful. However, concupiscence also includes the unruly desires of the will, such as pride, ambition, and envy. (Etym. Latin con-, thoroughly + cupere, to desire: concupiscentia, desire, greed, cupidity.)

For example, the Douay-Rheims (DR) translates the Latin Vulgate "sepulchra Concupiscentiae" as “the grave of lust” (Num 11:34)

John 2:16 (DR) states: “***For all that is in the world is the concupiscence of the flesh ***concupiscentia carnis] and the concupiscence of the eyes and the pride of life, which is not of the Father but is of the world.”

St. Thomas Aquinas taught: “Christ had grace and all the virtues most perfectly…thus, [the virtue of] temperence controls the concupiscible appetite…But there belongs to the very nature of the “fomes” of sin an inclination of the sensual appetite to what is contrary to reason…in Christ the virtues were in their highest degree, the “fomes” of sin was nowise in Him…” (*Summa Theologica, *III, 15, 2).

I understand that some brothers have a disorder such that they may indeed have a sexual attraction to their sister, but this is clearly disordered desire, a snesual appetite contrary to reason. For Christ to have such a sexual attraction for any of his creative offspring or his sisters would necessarily be a disordered sensual appetite contrary to reason.

St. Thomas Aquinas: “Christ’s flesh naturally sought food, drink, and sleep, and all else that is sought in right reason, as is plain from [St. John] Damascene (De Fide Orth. iii, 14). Yet it does not therefore follow that in Christ there was the “fomes” of sin, for this implies the lust after pleasurable things against the order of reason.” (ibid.)

It is Catholic doctrine that Christ did not have disordered desire of any sort. He was not solicited to sin (tempted) from within, because his appetites were always ordered to reason. He was only solicited to sin from without.

St. Thomas Aquinas: “this belonged to Christ, whose spirit reached the highest degree of fortitude. And although He suffered no internal assault on the part of the “fomes” of sin, He sustained an external assault on the part of the world and the devil, and won the crown of victory by overcoming them.” (ibid.)

 

[guanophore]

Theologians more precisely call it the fomes (“tinder” or “kindling”) of sin, and it is a consequence of original sin.

According to Fr. John Hardon’s Pocket Catholic Dictionary:

For example, the Douay-Rheims (DR) translates the Latin Vulgate "sepulchra Concupiscentiae" as “the grave of lust” (Num 11:34)

John 2:16 (DR) states: “***For all that is in the world is the concupiscence of the flesh ***concupiscentia carnis] and the concupiscence of the eyes and the pride of life, which is not of the Father but is of the world.”

St. Thomas Aquinas taught: “Christ had grace and all the virtues most perfectly…thus, [the virtue of] temperence controls the concupiscible appetite…But there belongs to the very nature of the “fomes” of sin an inclination of the sensual appetite to what is contrary to reason…in Christ the virtues were in their highest degree, the “fomes” of sin was nowise in Him…” (*Summa Theologica, *III, 15, 2).

I understand that some brothers have a disorder such that they may indeed have a sexual attraction to their sister, but this is clearly disordered desire, a snesual appetite contrary to reason. For Christ to have such a sexual attraction for any of his creative offspring or his sisters would necessarily be a disordered sensual appetite contrary to reason.

St. Thomas Aquinas: “Christ’s flesh naturally sought food, drink, and sleep, and all else that is sought in right reason, as is plain from [St. John] Damascene (De Fide Orth. iii, 14). Yet it does not therefore follow that in Christ there was the “fomes” of sin, for this implies the lust after pleasurable things against the order of reason.” (ibid.)

It is Catholic doctrine that Christ did not have disordered desire of any sort. He was not solicited to sin (tempted) from within, because his appetites were always ordered to reason. He was only solicited to sin from without.

St. Thomas Aquinas: “this belonged to Christ, whose spirit reached the highest degree of fortitude. And although He suffered no internal assault on the part of the “fomes” of sin, He sustained an external assault on the part of the world and the devil, and won the crown of victory by overcoming them.” (ibid.)

Thank your, for this very scholarly and helpful post!

 

[valient_Lucy]

I think this happened because so many of us cannot imagine the sexual nature of humanity without thinking of temptation, and sin.

That’s a good point, and that’s probably how we got onto the subject of temptation in the first place. It goes onto the subject of telling the difference between attraction and lust, which is not always easy to do, at least for me, to be honest. Adam and Eve must have experienced sexual attraction before the Fall, and that desire was good. But since the fall, our desires can often become warped and sinful.

I don’t really know how I feel about what the priest said, though I do think, as other posters pointed out, it could seem that the priest was implying that Jesus could have lusted, which of course he could not have done so, or worse, that lust is good. So I think, whatever his intentions might have been, the results of his comments were probably not very good.

I think also the problem is, is the priest saying that Jesus thought about sex in a more academic, impersonal sense, or in the sense of thinking about He Himself sleeping with someone.

My :twocents:

 

[Joanp62]

It is Catholic doctrine that Christ did not have disordered desire of any sort. He was not solicited to sin (tempted) from within, because his appetites were always ordered to reason. He was only solicited to sin from without. (ibid.)

So what does solicited to sin FROM WITHIN and solicited to sin FROM WITHOUT mean in this case? I have understood it to mean that, in regard to our Lord in the desert with Satan, that Satan tempted him FROM WITHOUT. To me that DOESN’T mean that Jesus EVEN CONSIDERED giving in to Satan’s suggestions. That would be FROM WITHIN. But most on this forum seem to think otherwise, and I have yet to find elsewhere anything from the Church to clarify it. Just because someone outside of ourselves tempts us with something, we can still be considered as having been tempted even if we did not entertain the thought.

God Bless,
Joan P.

 

[guanophore]

So what does solicited to sin FROM WITHIN and solicited to sin FROM WITHOUT mean in this case? I have understood it to mean that, in regard to our Lord in the desert with Satan, that Satan tempted him FROM WITHOUT. To me that DOESN’T mean that Jesus EVEN CONSIDERED giving in to Satan’s suggestions. That would be FROM WITHIN. But most on this forum seem to think otherwise, and I have yet to find elsewhere anything from the Church to clarify it. Just because someone outside of ourselves tempts us with something, we can still be considered as having been tempted even if we did not entertain the thought.

God Bless,
Joan P.

It is an interesting question. Remember in the garden, when Peter cut off the ear of the High Priest’s servant? Jesus rebuked him and told him “don’t you think I could send for x many legions of angels” I forget the exact. How could he have said that if he had not imagined it? If he could imagine it, and he can’t imagine sin, then it must not have been a temptation? I think he may have, especially as a young man, imagined himself as a husband and father. BUt since that was not his vocation, and his Father’s will, and he could not be tempted by such an imagination, then what is that?

 

[Joanp62]

So what does solicited to sin FROM WITHIN and solicited to sin FROM WITHOUT mean in this case? I have understood it to mean that, in regard to our Lord in the desert with Satan, that Satan tempted him FROM WITHOUT. To me that DOESN’T mean that Jesus EVEN CONSIDERED giving in to Satan’s suggestions. That would be FROM WITHIN. But most on this forum seem to think otherwise, and I have yet to find elsewhere anything from the Church to clarify it. Just because someone outside of ourselves tempts us with something, we can still be considered as having been tempted even if we did not entertain the thought.

God Bless,
Joan P.

It is an interesting question. Remember in the garden, when Peter cut off the ear of the High Priest’s servant? Jesus rebuked him and told him “don’t you think I could send for x many legions of angels” I forget the exact. How could he have said that if he had not imagined it? If he could imagine it, and he can’t imagine sin, then it must not have been a temptation? I think he may have, especially as a young man, imagined himself as a husband and father. BUt since that was not his vocation, and his Father’s will, and he could not be tempted by such an imagination, then what is that?

I’m sorry guanaphone, but your response doesn’t make sense in regard to what you are quoting from me. I am not talking about imagining anything. I am talking about whether Jesus considered giving in to any of the external temptations before we rejected them. I am currently reading The Fulfillment of All Desire by Ralph Martin. In the chapter on Temptations and Trials he references St. Francis de Sales’ Introduction to the Devout Life **: **
**While we are all familiar with the basic concept of being tempted and giving into it or not, Francis points out that a crucial decision is actually make right after the temptation presents itself, at the stage where we are either initially pleased or displeased by it. He points out that even if we have no intention of giving in to the temptation the decision to take pleasure in thinking about it for a while before rejecting it is *both dangerous and *damaging in itself…as soon as we become aware of it we need to immediately reject both the pleasure and the temptation. **

Now he is not talking about Our Lord being tempted, but if we are strongly cautioned to *not even consider *it before rejecting it, something we would be inclined to do because of concupiscence, Jesus himself would not have even considered it before rejecting it.

God Bless,
Joan P.

 

[FCEGM]

I’m sorry guanaphone, but your response doesn’t make sense in regard to what you are quoting from me. I am not talking about imagining anything. I am talking about whether Jesus considered giving in to any of the external temptations before we rejected them. I am currently reading The Fulfillment of All Desire by Ralph Martin. In the chapter on Temptations and Trials he references St. Francis de Sales’ Introduction to the Devout Life **: **
**While we are all familiar with the basic concept of being tempted and giving into it or not, Francis points out that a crucial decision is actually make right after the temptation presents itself, at the stage where we are either initially pleased or displeased by it. He points out that even if we have no intention of giving in to the temptation the decision to take pleasure in thinking about it for a while before rejecting it is *both dangerous and ***damaging in itself…as soon as we become aware of it we need to immediately reject both the pleasure and the temptation.

Now he is not talking about Our Lord being tempted, but if we are strongly cautioned to *not even consider *it before rejecting it, something we would be inclined to do because of concupiscence, Jesus himself would not have even considered it before rejecting it.

God Bless,
Joan P.

Precisely, Joan. The world and the devil would tempt Our Lord from outside, but there was no concupiscence in Him that could pull Him towards sin within His humanity.